Advertisement

Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems

  • Manfred Reichert
  • Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
  • Peter Dadam
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5460)

Abstract

Process-aware information systems (PAIS) must be able to deal with uncertainty, exceptional situations, and environmental changes. Needed business agility is often hindered by the lacking flexibility of existing PAIS. Once a process is implemented, its logic cannot be adapted or refined anymore. This often leads to rigid behavior or gaps between real-world processes and implemented ones. In response to this drawback, adaptive PAIS have emerged, which allow to dynamically adapt or evolve the structure of process models under execution. This paper deals with fundamental challenges related to structural process changes, discusses how existing approaches deal with them, and shows how the various problems have been exterminated in ADEPT2 change framework. We also survey existing approaches fostering flexible process support.

Keywords

Meta Model Execution Trace Process Instance Change Operation Exception Handling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bassil, S., Keller, R., Kropf, P.: A workflow–oriented system architecture for the management of container transportation. In: Desel, J., Pernici, B., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3080, pp. 116–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lenz, R., Reichert, M.: IT support for healthcare processes - premises, challenges, perspectives. Data and Knowledge Engineering 61, 39–58 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Müller, R., Greiner, U., Rahm, E.: AgentWork: A workflow system supporting rule–based workflow adaptation. Data and Knowlege Engineering 51, 223–256 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Müller, D., Herbst, J., Hammori, M., Reichert, M.: IT support for release management processes in the automotive industry. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 368–377. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Flexible support of team processes by adaptive workflow systems. Distributed and Parallel Databases 16, 91–116 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change patterns and change support features in process-aware information systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., Sidorova, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Constraint-based workflow models: Change made easy. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 77–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weske, M.: Workflow management systems: Formal foundation, conceptual design, implementation aspects. University of Münster, Habilitation Thesis (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems – a survey. Data and Knowledge Engineering 50, 9–34 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ellis, C., Keddara, K., Rozenberg, G.: Dynamic change within workflow systems. In: COOCS 1995, pp. 10–21 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex - supporting dynamic changes of workflows without losing control. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10, 93–129 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sadiq, S., Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.: Pockets of flexibility in workflow specifications. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 513–526. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Adams, M., Hofstede, A., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.: Worklets: A service-oriented implementation of dynamic flexibility in workflows. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4275, pp. 291–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Aalst, W., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data and Knowledge Engineering 53, 129–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller, D., Reichert, M., Herbst, J.: A new paradigm for the enactment and dynamic adaptation of data-driven process structures. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Aalst, W., Basten, T.: Inheritance of workflows: An approach to tackling problems related to change. Theoretical Computer Science 270, 125–203 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Change patterns and change support features - enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. Data and Knowledge Engineering 66, 438–466 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dehnert, J., Zimmermann, A.: On the suitability of correctness criteria for business process models. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 386–391. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., Pozzi, G.: Workflow evolution. Data and Knowledge Engineering 24, 211–238 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Aalst, W., Weske, M., Wirtz, G.: Advanced topics in workflow management. Int’l Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 7 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haddad, S., Pradat-Peyre, J.: New efficient petri nets reductions for parallel programs verification. Parallel Processing Letters 16, 101–116 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rinderle-Ma, S., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: On the formal semantics of change patterns in process-aware information systems. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 279–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wolz, J.: New control and data flow concepts in ADEPT2. Master’s thesis, Ulm University (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Minor, M., Schmalen, D., Koldehoff, A., Bergmann, R.: Structural adaptation of workflows supported by a suspension mechanism and by case-based reasoning. In: WETICE 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.: Yawl: Yet another workflow language. Information Systems 30, 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Agostini, A., De Michelis, G.: Improving flexibility of workflow management systems. In: BPM 2000, pp. 218–234 (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Supporting workflow schema evolution by efficient compliance checks. Technical Report UIB2003-02, Ulm University (2003), http://www.uni-ulm.de/in/iui-dbis/forschung/publikationen.html
  28. 28.
    Rinderle, S.: Schema Evolution in Process Management Systems. PhD thesis, Ulm University (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    van der Aalst, W.: Exterminating the dynamic change bug: A concrete approach to support worfklow change. Information Systems Frontiers 3, 297–317 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reichert, M., Rinderle, S.: On design principles for realizing adaptive service flows with BPEL. In: EMISA 2006, pp. 133–146 (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reichert, M., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: On the common support of workflow type and instance changes under correctness constraints. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Schmidt, D.C. (eds.) CoopIS 2003, DOA 2003, and ODBASE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2888, pp. 407–425. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rinderle-Ma, S., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Relaxed compliance notions in adaptive process management systems. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 232–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Müller, R.: Event-Oriented Dynamic Adaptation of Workflows. PhD thesis, University of Leipzig, Germany (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Golani, M., Gal, A.: Optimizing exception handling in workflows using process restructuring. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 407–413. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Wild, W., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Providing integrated life cycle support in process-aware information systems. Int’l Journal of Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS) 18 (2009)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ly, L., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: Integration and verification of semantic constraints in adaptive process management systems. DKE 64, 3–23 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Wild, W., Rinderle, S.: Balancing flexibility and security in adaptive process management systems. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3760, pp. 59–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bobrik, R., Reichert, M., Bauer, T.: View-based process visualization. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 88–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P., Bauer, T.: Dealing with forward and backward jumps in workflow management systems. Software and Systems Modeling (SOSYM) 2, 37–58 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.: Exception Handling Patterns in Process-Aware Information Systems. In: CAiSE 2006, pp. 288–302 (2006)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Adams, M., ter Hofstede, A., van der Aalst, W., Edmond, D.: Dynamic, extensible and context-aware exception handling for workflows. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 95–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kumar, A., Wainer, J.: Meta workflows as a control and coordination mechanism for exception handling in workflow systems. Dec. Support Sys. 40, 85–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Data-driven process control and exception handling in process management systems. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 273–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pesic, M.: Constrained-based Workflow Management Systems – Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, TU Eindhoven (2008)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wainer, J., de Lima Bezerra, F.: Constraint-Based Flexible Workflows. In: Favela, J., Decouchant, D. (eds.) CRIWG 2003. LNCS, vol. 2806, pp. 151–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mangan, P., Sadiq, S.: A constraint specification approach to building flexible workflows. J of Research and Practice in Inf Technology 35, 21–39 (2002)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mutschler, B., Weber, B., Reichert, M.: Workflow management versus case handling: Results from a controlled software experiment. In: SAC 2008, pp. 82–89 (2008)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Müller, D., Reichert, M., Herbst, J.: Data-driven modeling and coordination of large process structures. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 131–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: Discovering reference process models by mining process variants. In: ICWS 2007, Beijing, pp. 45–53 (2008)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Guenther, C., Rinderle-Ma, S., Reichert, M., van der Aalst, W., Recker, J.: Using process mining to learn from process changes in evolutionary systems. Int’l Journal of Business Process Integration and Management 3, 61–78 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: On measuring process model similarity based on high-level change operations. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 248–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rinderle-Ma, S., Reichert, M.: Managing the life cycle of access rules in CEOSIS. In: Proc. EDOC 2008, Munich, pp. 257–266 (2008)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rinderle-Ma, S., Reichert, M.: A formal framework for adaptive access control models. In: Spaccapietra, S., Atzeni, P., Fages, F., Hacid, M.-S., Kifer, M., Mylopoulos, J., Pernici, B., Shvaiko, P., Trujillo, J., Zaihrayeu, I. (eds.) Journal on Data Semantics IX. LNCS, vol. 4601, pp. 82–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Managing process variants in the process lifecycle. In: ICEIS 2008, Barcelona, pp. 154–161 (2008)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M.: Refactoring process models in large process repositories. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 124–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred Reichert
    • 1
  • Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
    • 1
  • Peter Dadam
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Databases and Information SystemsUlm UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations